The Patterson Film is a Hoax, Does that make me a "Troll"??? Options

[Huntster]

Apparently, this thread will never die.

I suppose that's fitting. It only further confirms to me that the PG film is genuine.

It's like politics; even obvious lies pass. You can come up with EVERYTIHNG less a sasquatch carcass, and the skeptics will pick at it.

Hell, in today's world, I wouldn't be surprised if, after somebody plops a sasquatch carcass on the examining table of the world's scientific community, there are still legions of folks still pontificating that it is a hoax. If you've been condemning the existence of the creatures all along, you'd have to continue (even if you've been PROVEN' wrong) just to save face.

And 'face' is EVERYTHING in this world, isn't it?

[jimf]

I do believe that others have examined the dermal ridges of casts and have come to the same conclusions that Jimmy Chillcut has, but they aren't as willing to put their name out there yet

If you just provide them with a cast and say "examine this cast of this wierd footprint found in Walla Walla, Washington." without mentioning anything about BF.

Do you really think all of the experts would refuse to publish their findings in a scientific magazine, if the results indicated that it was from an unkown animal?

One thing to point out...Chilicutt is one of the very few CSI's that has any experience or knowledge regarding non-human primate dermals...

[magikern]

If any scientist receives a cast of a BF print and doesn't make the BF connection, then they aren't very good scientists. A very large human-like foot kind of identifies itself, you know?

And yes, I do believe that scientists would refuse to be associated with anything BF related. It has been happening for decades.

If it was an American, yes!

Let the most important specialist in dermal anatomy of Primates outside USA examine the Walla Walla cast.

It´s very possible that they would be less biased.

[RogerKni]

You're the most sincere and reasonable of the three skeptics now on board...

Only three? How was that determination made? I'm skeptical of your methods for identifying skeptics.

RayG

It's not uncommon for a term that has a general meaning to acquire a special connotation when used within a particular group. (I can't think of any examples offhand, though.) That's what's happened with "skeptic" here--we sometimes use it in a special way: To refer to someone who wants to throw a lot of cold water on us believers, and who largely scorns our whole mindset and/or approach to the Bigfoot problem, not just someone who takes the reports and theories presented here with a grain (or cup) of salt, and who would like to see more hard data in place of anecdotes. The latter is the standard definition, the former is our special-usage.

Context indicates which form we're using. For instance, on Aug. 2, 2003, bipto was using our special, in-house definition when he began his response to EO's initial blast with the sentence: "Finally, we've snared another skeptic! It's been months and months."

It might be suggested that "debunker" should be used instead of "skeptic," but that isn't a good alternative term because it should be restricted to those (like Long) who allege they have come up with investigatory findings that undermine a particular claim or set of claims, not just those who are aggressively unpersuaded by the believers' case.

And "scoftic" isn't applicable either, because I want to restrict its applicability to those who buy into the interlocking set of doctrines that are the core of the modern Skeptics Movement, such as Winston Wu has enumerated on his site. (E.g., the Extraordinary Evidence requirement, Occam's Razor, etc.) Despite my initial suspicion, Long doesn't seem to qualify, because he doesn't make use of those doctrines in his book.

Maybe "nattering nabobs of negativism" would do?

[Fishbone35]

So Chilcutt is the best in the world and he always makes the right conclusions.  :rolleyes:

What a broad-brushed statement, unless of course you're a dermal ridge analysis expert in your own right.

First, you need to understand that Jimmy Chilcutt is not a bigfoot researcher. He will readily tell you that just as he told everyone in attendance at the Willow Creek Symposium.

Second, you need to understand that when Jimmy Chilcutt began doing more and more research into dermal ridges he was at a loss to find any pertinent material that would answer his questions in relation to criminal investigations. So, he began researching the subject in so much depth that he did become one of the most, if not the most imminent expert in the world in regards to dermal ridge analysis. However, I would certainly invite you to name any of these "non-American" experts you've alluded to. For my money though, when the FBI contacts a detective from the Conroe, Texas Police Department to help them with dermal ridge analysis, it sure puts him "up there" in the expert department. Of course, you don't have to agree.

How come their haven´t been much interest  in his "dermalridges" analysis from the scientific community, then?

How do you define "much interest"? Jeff Meldrum was certainly interested and as I've already stated, the FBI has been very interested in Officer Chilcutt's dermal ridge analysis. (The FBI does employ a variety of scientists, don't they? )

And, as Officer Chilcutt also stated, his observations and opinions can hold the very life of someone accused of a crime in the balance. Can he be wrong? Of course, we're all only human. However, he's usually got a lot more riding on his "opinions" than bigfoot. He further stated that whether the dermal ridges he's examined in certain footprint casts were created by a sasquatch is unknown to him. But he is certain that whatever made those tracks did so with a real foot and the dermal ridges do not match up with humans or any other non-human primate. What other information or explanation would you desire in addition to that candid, professional statement from an expert?

Please though, name your non-American experts and tell us what, in your opinion, qualifies them to a higher degree than Officer Chilcutt. I would really like to know who these experts are. Maybe then they can also be persuaded to examine the evidence and either back up or refute Jimmy Chilcutt's observations.

[magikern]

Please though, name your non-American experts and tell us what, in your opinion, qualifies them to a higher degree than Officer Chilcutt. I would really like to know who these experts are. Maybe then they can also be persuaded to examine the evidence and either back up or refute Jimmy Chilcutt's observations.

I never doubted that Chilcutt is good at what he does.

I don´t think that the Walla Walla cast should stand and fall with one persons analysis, that´s it.

How big is the footprint by the way?

If it isn´t too big it may be human after all.

I met a guy recently that was born without fingerprints on any finger. Maybe you can be born with different patters on your feet as well.

[Fishbone35]

Six different casts from different locales in Dr. Meldrum's collection match the same anomaly Officer Chilcutt noted. What's so special about the one cast from Walla Walla?

[RogerKni]

Continuing my post to Ray: Maybe "Disbeliever" would be a better word to use for our three Doubting Thomases than "skeptic," which is a very general term. I don't want to use "scoffer", because that implies someone who's had only a knee-jerk response, without examining the evidence.

One minor point: On one of the skeptics' boards or blogs I visited last year, the head honcho was pouring scorn on believers who've said to him, "I'm skeptical too." Such persons were not applying the correct filters and skeptical techniques, he complained--i.e., those blinkers that are part of the catechism of CSICOP et al. So The Other Side is also making use of an "in-house" special meaning of the term.

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Jun 6 2004, 10:45 PM

[RayG]

Continuing my post to Ray: Maybe "Disbeliever" would be a better word to use for our three Doubting Thomases than "skeptic," which is a very general term.

I'm probably not your typical skeptic, as in the CSICOP sense, but I still get somewhat annoyed when the term 'skeptic' is used to collectively describe people in a negative manner.

RayG

[magikern]

Six different casts from different locales in Dr. Meldrum's collection match the same anomaly Officer Chilcutt noted. What's so special about the one cast from Walla Walla?

Chilcutt especially mentioned this cast! I assume that it has got more details.

How big where the casts by the way?

[RogerKni]

Hunster: Here's an article from yesterday's Seattle Times, "Bungled fingerprints expose problems at FBI," which touches on the issue of whether fingerprint identification is an exact science, and how qualified are the experts who do the identification. Apparently the smudged, partial prints found at many crime scenes can't always be definitively matched to a fingerprint on file, and many experts have received little training and are only marginally competent.

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Jun 8 2004, 02:50 AM

[Paul1968UK]

Six different casts from different locales in Dr. Meldrum's collection match the same anomaly Officer Chilcutt noted. What's so special about the one cast from Walla Walla?

This is all very well, but would you believe me if I told you that Chilcutt made no contemporaneous records whatsoever about which casts he had examined ?

As a forensic examiner and expert witness myself, I found that quite incredible, and I wish I had known this before I met Chilcutt last September.


The whole field of Bigfoot research is in need of a serious shake up !

[AnotherPullTab]

The issue with fingerprints is important. I am considered "an expert" because of my training, although I dont classify prints or match them at this time (its been about 8 years since I took my identification course taught by FBI). Identix and AFIS has made that job somewhat easier, but ultimately, no matter how great technology becomes in reading prints, a human will always be in the loop to provide the essential thumbs up or thumbs down on the identification of the owner of a print.

Classification of prints is subjective. Its based on what is observed (ridge counts, loops, whorls etc.). If the person taking the prints does a poor job, less information can be used to match a print. If the print taken is a good quality print, then its very easy to classify and thus, identify.

Smudged prints, to my knowledge, cannot be used in the ID process as there is no actual points of comparision that can be replicated as can be done with clean prints.

[magikern]

This is all very well, but would you believe me if I told you that Chilcutt made no contemporaneous records whatsoever about which casts he had examined ? 

As a forensic examiner and expert witness myself, I found that quite incredible, and I wish I had known this before I met Chilcutt last September.

That´s makes me wonder how serious Chilcutt is in first place!

Anybody know who´s got the original casts he examined right now?

[RogerKni]

I can excuse him if the following were the situation: He went up to Meldrum's as a skeptic, not expecting to find anything worthy of belief. He had absolutely no intention of getting involved as any sort of "investigator" in the Bigfoot field. He was floored and disoriented by what he discovered, and could not immediately "put on a new hat."

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Jun 9 2004, 03:09 AM

[bipto]

And that, according to Chilcutt, is exactly what happened...

[HBK]

When we watched the Legend Meets Science footage, I thought it was pretty realistic but my wife thought it was someone in a monkey suit. I can't see it being fake, I really can't.

[Paul1968UK]

Bob H is a proven liar. In chapter 9 Long asks "Were you part of that movie?"
"No," he answered flatly. By chapter 20 he is telling of being the "man in the suit."
He has to be lying one time or the other.

There is an interesting quotation on page 48:

"There's four Heironimus boys. Bob. And Bill. Bill worked for me for a while. Then there's Howard and Mike. The Idle Hour Tavern's where we'd go to congregate, lie to each other, and tell these big storiies and try to make out like we was somethin."

There is also more than one reference in Long's book where Heironimus is said to have got drunk and told people about the suit, and yet not only does Heironimus tell Long that he is a 'sober' man who doesn't get drunk, but he also says that he never told anyone about the suit.

[RogerKni]

First let's clear the decks a bit.  My 5-line "rant" contained no strong language or name-calling, and only one upper-cased word, which is within the quota allowed.  I rarely rant; and the words I used did not appeal to the baser emotions.  If it was a rant, it was a "good" rant.

Roger, the 'rant' I was referring to were the unflattering comments you constantly throw out about 'scoftics'. I drew attention to it in my post by saying, "Rant all ya want about 'scoftics'..." You do that a lot. Two pages worth if you do a search. People usually rant and rave about things they don't like, so, based upon the sheer number of negative posts, I'm assuming you're not fond of scoftics.

My nearest dictionary defines “rant� thus: “v.t. to use vehement or extravagant language. –n. empty declaration, bombast.� This supports the line I took in my defense above; that I had avoided “strong language or name-calling� and “appeals to the baser emotions,� and that calling what I’d written a “rant� was improper. Thus your response that I constantly throw out unflattering comments about scoftics is irrelevant. And my comments aren’t mere personal digs, as your “unflattering� semi-insinuates, but primarily criticisms of their doctrines and debating tactics, such as their “extraordinary evidence� requirement, etc.

What you should have said is this: “Oops, let me rephrase that. You’re constantly sniping at scoftics. Why don’t you come out in the open and, e.g., write a rebuttal of my post of Nov. 14 (in “How’d You like Bigfoot to be Discovered�)? That was the one in which I implied that skeptics are making no procedural or moral errors in their treatment of anomalistic issues, merely errors of judgment, and that the only evidence that counts, and that they are obliged to pay any attention to, is extraordinary evidence, like a body.�

To which I would have replied, “I’ve always wanted to write full-featured, frontal attacks on scofticism, but I’ve discovered that a lot of reading is required to really get a handle on where they’re at and where they’re coming from, and I’ve also found myself distracted from paying attention to them. (E.g., by my involvement in Bigfoot-specific topics (both online and offline) such as the Long book and the IM Index, and also in another topic-specific conflict with the scoftics, this one involving the case of “The Mad Gasser of Mattoon,� which they assert (despite suggestive evidence to the contrary) was merely a case of mass hysteria.) And I’ve run into a writer’s block—I’ve got four or five frontal-attack articles 1/3 done and gotten stuck. So I’m trying, with my sniping, to see if I can get something written by just leaping into the topic and knocking off random paragraphs that I can later cobble together into something more coherent. I’ll try to get around to responding to your post, but I’ve got several other posts I’ve copied over to my Respond-To file (e.g., from JimF & Wolftrax) that also need answering, and I’m six weeks behind in my responses to posts on the IMI controversy. So it’ll be a few months, probably.�

...slimy scoftic subterfuge...

A trifle salty, I admit, but rare for me, and justified by a provocation like this, which I’d recently come across:

Don Grieve, an anatomist specializing in human gait, came to the conclusion that the walk was essentially human in type and could be made by a modern man.

Which omits Grieve’s qualification, “If the film was taken at 24 fps.� (From the third line of the last page of the Appendix in Napier’s book—i.e., p. 208 in most editions.) It has subsequently been shown that the film couldn’t have been shot at 24 fps. (See Krantz, pp. 94-97.)

Second, Glickman computed the stride at 93.4 inches (p. 13), and attributed the 81.5 figure to measurement error (from toe to heel).

Computed or measured? How did Glickman reach his conclusion? Krantz claims the stride length "from left heel to the next left heel, was typically 81.5 inches."(1) They both can't be correct.

I think you’re right, and that Glickman, relying on Byrne, was wrong. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that I seem to remember you using a phrase like “There are only three incontrovertible [or “undisputed�] facts concerning the Patterson creature,� and I wanted to contradict the boldfaced word. (But maybe my recollection is faulty, because I haven’t been able to find a phrase like that when I’ve searched for it, although I’ve found one in which you used the word “measured.�)

Third, we don't need Patty's height, weight, and girth.  All we need are her body-part ratios.

I was merely pointing out the only factual measurements we have from the 1967 encounter. No accurate measurements of height, weight, or girth are possible based on those numbers.

First, it’s not true that “the only measurable facts concerning the Patterson creature� are her 1.66mm height on the film, her stride, and her footprint length. Her body-part ratios are measurable facts that can be obtained from the film. (E.g., five of her foot-lengths equal her walking height.)

Second, you were doing more than merely pointing out that we have only three measurements of Patty. Implicitly you were denying both item 1 above, and also my statement that “we don’t need Patty’s height, weight, and girth� and insisting instead on their prime importance. I suspect they seem more basic to you, and more in keeping with Kelvin’s call for quantifiable data, than a ratio. Or maybe you like them because they require that a body be brought in. Since you’ve previously taken a strong stand that a body is necessary, accepting photo-based ratios as valid evidence would mean backing down from that position, something you might prefer to avoid.

You used the term "guesstimates" to characterize what is involved in a relativistic approach, but that is 1) not true, 2) mostly correctable, and 3) not relevant.

No, I used the term 'guesstimate' while referring to Patty's height, weight, and girth. True, not correctable, and certainly relevant when used in the manner I chose. No matter which expert studies the film, they can't come up with those three measurements.

In the exchange below, you were responding to my post, which you quoted, and in which I acknowledged that photo-measurements wouldn't give fraction-of-an-inch accuracy, so your “guesstimates� sure seemed to me to refer to my photo measurements, and to dismiss them because they wouldn’t provide the figures you think are required to identify the species:

This [your demand for a body, which I quoted] implies that a miss [e.g., all non-body evidence] is as good as a mile—which isn’t true.  That’s the scoftics’ black-or-white debating tactic [whereby] … the skeptic wins by default.
Remember, we’re not talking about an absolute measurement (like Patty’s height),… but about a relativistic one, which is much easier to make, where the sources of error are minor and fairly easily compensated for, and where even the greatest error wouldn’t affect the outcome of the inquiry very much. …
… we don’t need The Best Butter [a body].  Photo measurement is plenty good enough for the purposes of differentiating two species. … We don’t need fraction-of-an-inch accuracy ….

You responded (the time is “off�, presumably because of time-zone differences):

All the guesstimates in the world won’t give us:  Patty’s Height.  Patty’s weight.  Patty’s girth.

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Jun 22 2004, 11:29 PM

[JWBrown33]

Roger, I'll get what you asked for ASAP. Have not been down out of the mtns yet due to certain circumstances, but will pay a visit as soon as I can to Morris.



This post has been edited by JWBrown33: Jun 23 2004, 05:40 AM

[RogerKni]

With all due respect (And I really mean that, Roger), you continue to miss my point. The reason that the subject in the P&G film looks as it does is because of the low quality of the camera, film, and a shaky-handed operator. Please re-read my earlier reply, taken in the proper context.

The quality of the images showing the supposed "bigfoot" in the P&G film are a direct result of the low-quality of the camera, the film, and a shaky handed operator. Who in Hollywood would take these measures to produce a film and expect it to go places at the box office? Historically, Hollywood has been brutally competitive. Producers wanted the best cameras, film, and situations possible in order to help make the end result a success. The "Hollywood mindset" if you will. If their movie failed at the box office, then their careers and their finances would plummet. It doesn't stand to reason that any producer in Hollywood, circa late 1960's, would have wanted to take the chance of filming with a poor-quality 16mm movie camera and losing their shirt in the process. This is why we need a re-creation of the film using the exact same type of camera and film. AFAIK, this has not been done to date, so to say that is "not humanly possible" is a premature statement.

I explained my reasoning as to why "Hollywood" has not matched the "effects" in the film to date. It is because "Hollywood" has never filmed a hair-covered, bipedal subject using an inexpensive 16mm camera, and used an exited, shaky-handed operator to do so. If "Hollywood" had done this, and included this type of footage in a movie, then maybe the quality could have been matched. Your idea is ground-breaking, and has probably not been considered to date, and probably for such as simple reason that it is just "too simple", and overlooked by the "Hollywood" crowd because of the brutally competitive environment and their lust for perfection by using the latest, cutting-edge technology that is available at the time. To just film a short clip of a hair-covered, bipedal subject in full sunlight, from a distance, using a cheap old 16mm camera, and make sure to shake the camera a little as if exited, may be better than any special effects to date(that is if your audience is comprised mostly of bigfoot researchers and enthusiast). Maybe "Hollywood" should try this, and include it in one of their films, or just maybe an interested party should try this with a re-creation of the P&G film, especially before their suspicion grows into a premature announcement of "achieving an ape suit as realistic as Patty is not humanly possible."

Also, a point left unaddressed:

If the images of the P&G film were captured by an expensive, stabilized, professional movie camera, then it would undoubtedly be clear as to where this was a man in a costume, or the real thing.

(IE, a professional movie camera, as used historically in "Hollywood")

*

Vol has a great point regarding the nature of 16mm film. Add to that the distance Patterson is from Patty (anybody out there know exactly just how tiny the Patty image is on those frames?) and his herky-jerky movements and voila! you've got a critter that comes off looking pretty mysterious. The power of the film is precisely this "low-fi" factor.  35mm or even video recreations would provide too much detail to be believable... For decades, filmmakers have exploited this distinctive feature of 16mm film to great dramatic effect  (Night of the Living Dead!!!)

So....
1)The Patty suit was not sophisticated at all- certainly nowhere near the groundbreaking and historic prosthetic appliances Chambers used in "Planet..." or even Rick Baker's apes of the 70's (Schlock!) The suit was probably carefully modified in very homespun fashion by Patterson/Gimlin. The face is certainly the weakest aspect of their collective modifications... Certainly better than the typical ape mask that Morris originally provided with his costumes, but still seriously flawed. The guys could've greatly benefited from some of Chamber's appliances.

2)The serious limitations of 16mm film actually aided the hoax and helped elevate it to mythical heights.

That reasoning leads to several amusing absurdities:

1. That Patterson’s film would have been more believable if he’d shot it in a medium with one-quarter the frame-area, like 8 mm., or shaken it twice as often or twice as hard. (All he’d have had to do would have been to down a dozen cups of coffee beforehand to acquire a nice case of Java Jitters.)

2. That subsequent video-hoaxers merely needed to use poor equipment to achieve convincing results. But none have done so—Krantz mentions (p. 122) eight subsequent “Bigfoot� films and videos (most presumably 8mm or analogue VCR videos) , obviously “all fakes.� But how can that be, if Technically Worse = Impressionistically Better?

3. That casual viewers of the film have been, on the whole, mightily impressed with it. But, on the contrary, the general impression of first-time viewers of the beer-commercial version, or the film shown in theaters, is that “It looks like a guy in a suit.� (For instance, a poster a few weeks ago described the generally unimpressed and scornful reaction of high school students to whom Patterson showed his film.)

4. That viewers of the detailed views and replays provided by the DVD medium (using the LMS video) have ended up less impressed with the film than they had been before.

5. That detailed analysis of the film has tended to expose its phoniness, rather than support its authenticity. But the opposite has been the case, when the film has been:
• blown up,
• edited to remove the background and enlarge the creature
• watched in slow motion,
• watched frame by frame,
• stopped/backed up/restarted,
• printed out in great enlargement,
• stabilized
• digitized
• animated with CGI
• subjected to contrast-enhancement
• examined by experts in various disciplines
For example, Glickman (and others) who have used advanced techniques to examine the film have found muscle movement, a mobile kneecap (tough to forge), foot and hand flexion, a momentary herniated bulge on the thigh, non-uniform hair length, non-uniform hair color, etc.

6. That shakiness affected the clarity of all individual frames, and that the film was shaky in the crucial “best shot� frames. But it didn’t and it wasn’t. Many frames are clear; their fuzziness arises mostly from the distance. Most frames were held as steady as anyone could have held a camera under such circumstances. (The shakiness at the end was caused by Patterson attempting to rewind his camera.) Furthermore, if Patterson had been deliberately trying to degrade the quality of his film, as sneers about shakiness imply, a much better way to have done so would have been to have set the f-stop (exposure) or the focus (distance) settings incorrectly. These are the mistakes amateurs commonly make (so they’d have aroused less suspicion). (Sanderson even raised his eyebrow at how unlikely it was that Patterson had the lens cap off and the f-stop and focus set correctly.) They wouldn’t have been as obvious, and they would have better-frustrated advanced examination techniques.

7. That the film-type was “low quality.� But it wasn’t; it (Kodachrome II) was Kodak’s latest and best, and cost a lot to buy and develop.

8. That the K-100 was a “cheap old camera.� But it wasn’t. In Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, p. 2, Dan Perez states that the list cost of the K-100 camera Patterson used was $269. In those days there were few discount-chain-stores or discount mail-order sources, so it wouldn't have been easily available at a lower price. $269 would be equivalent to over $1000 today, making it a purchase-item for a professional or rich amateur only. Patterson initially tried, in 1961, to obtain a cheap camera from Harvey Anderson’s camera store:

Anderson tried to interest him in a sixteen-millimeter Bolex.  Patterson balked at the price; he wanted a camera that was “very cheap, but reliable and good.â€�  Well, Anderson said, then he should consider a sixteen-millimeter Revere motion picture magazine-type camera from Chicago.  They were discontinuing the line, and Anderson had bought quite a few at a fraction of their cost.  …  Anderson could sell the camera to Patterson for sixty-nine dollars.
P. 394:  He [Anderson] conceded [to Long] that the Revere was a poor camera for professional film-making.  [This may have been why it was being discontinued.]

The Revere could have been fairly characterized as a “cheap� camera, with all the connotations that “cheap� carries with it. Not the Kodak K-100.

The much cheaper 8 mm cameras probably outsold 16 mm cameras by a 10-to-1 margin (or more). An 8 mm camera that Patterson picked up at a yard sale for $5 (like one I own) could be fairly characterized as “cheap�—but not the K-100.

As to its age, Perez states the K-100 was manufactured from 1955-1964, so assuming the rental store bought a camera produced in the middle of that time span, it would have been made seven years before 1967, and thus wasn’t particularly old and decrepit. If the imputation of “old� is instead that its technology was crude, that seems unlikely. A major manufacturer like Kodak with its reputation on the line and with decades of development-experience to build on would have “gotten it right� by the mid-fifties. (BTW, if anyone wants an authentically old 16 mm camera, I’ve got a pre-war Cine-Ansco Model B.)

[The QuatchWatche...]

...8.  That the K-100 was a “cheap old camera.â€�  But it wasn’t.  In Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, p. 2, Dan Perez states that the list cost of the K-100 camera Patterson used was $269. In those days there were few discount-chain-stores or discount mail-order sources, so it wouldn't have been easily available at a lower price. $269 would be equivalent to over $1000 today, making it a purchase-item for a professional or rich amateur only...

Nice Roger...

After using The Consumer Price Index (CPI), I found that an item purchased in 1969 for $269.00 would be worth $1,372.85 today.

Interesting Link Above,
The MoneyWatcher

[Volsquatch]

You still continue to miss my point Roger. You asked:

The question I asked was why, if it’s a fake, and a non-professional fake at that (i.e., one quickly put together by a poor, inexperienced outsider), it would be virtually impossible for Hollywood not to have outdone it, or at least matched it.  Hollywood has 1000 times the (collective) experience, 10,000 times the money, and 100 times the motivation (i.e., it stands to make 100 times more from one of its ape-suit films than RP did from his Bigfoot movie).  Since it hasn’t done so, the suspicion grows that the reason it can’t is that it is not humanly possible.  (“Out, damned fact!â€�)

And I answered:

I'll take a stab at answering that one Roger. Thousands of dollars, expensive movie sets, high-quality movie cameras, and talented directors are not necessary to produce a film of such quality as the Patterson Film. AFAIK, no "Hollywood" movies were filmed using a somewhat cheap 16mm camera, operated by an exited, shaky-handed cowboy. Furthermore, AFAIK, no "Hollywood" movies were filmed using a somewhat cheap 16mm movie camera, operated by an exited, shaky-handed cowboy, and focusing specifically upon a hair covered, bipedal creature as the main subject of the film. If the images of the P&G film were captured by an expensive, stabilized, professional movie camera, then it would undoubtedly be clear as to where this was a man in a costume, or the real thing. Sometimes it is not necessary to bring the fine china and silver along when your going to be camping in the wilderness and eating beans and franks straight out of the can. Unless your a Hollywood producer that is. 

(i.e., it stands to make 100 times more from one of its ape-suit films than RP did from his Bigfoot movie).  Since it hasn’t done so, the suspicion grows that the reason it can’t is that it is not humanly possible.  (“Out, damned fact!â€�)

The quality of the images showing the supposed "bigfoot" in the P&G film are a direct result of the low-quality of the camera, the film, and a shaky handed operator. Who in Hollywood would take these measures to produce a film and expect it to go places at the box office? Historically, Hollywood has been brutally competitive. Producers wanted the best cameras, film, and situations possible in order to help make the end result a success. The "Hollywood mindset" if you will. If their movie failed at the box office, then their careers and their finances would plummet. It doesn't stand to reason that any producer in Hollywood, circa late 1960's, would have wanted to take the chance of filming with a poor-quality 16mm movie camera and losing their shirt in the process. This is why we need a re-creation of the film using the exact same type of camera and film. AFAIK, this has not been done to date, so to say that is is "not humanly possible" is a premature statement.

I wasn't trying to imply that Patterson deliberately shook the camera to try and make the film harder to analyze. I was talking about how, for Hollywood to match the results gained from the Patterson film, that they would have to use a somewhat cheap 16mm camera(Yes, the camera used by Patterson would have been considered "cheap" by Hollywood producers standards, just compare the cost of a several-year-old 16mm camera to one of Hollywood's cutting-edge, professional stage camera's of the time), and shake the camera to match Patterson's exited condition at the time of the original filming. It stands to reason that they would have to shake the camera to achieve the desired results, as the exited condition of Patterson was a natural reaction. I wasn't trying to imply that the "shakiness" of the original camera operator(Patterson) was staged. I believe it was natural, but for me to just say "shakiness", it apparently implies some kind of unnatural usage. That wasn't my intent. My intent was to say that Hollywood would have to match the quality of the Patterson film by reproducing every detail, even the shakiness. Please understand that when I said "somewhat cheap 16mm camera", I was referring to the comparison between the cost of the 16mm camera used by Patterson, and a cutting-edge, professional camera used by Hollywood at the time. The revelation that the 16mm camera(the one used by Patterson) was several years old at the time of the filming, actually shores up my point even further. Now we must compare a several year old, somewhat cheap 16mm camera(by Hollywood's standards), to a cutting-edge, professional camera used by Hollywood at the time. The gap is even further, and I am even more convinced that my point was valid regarding why Hollywood hasn't produced a film of this quality to date. Still, AFAIK, no "Hollywood" movies were filmed using a somewhat cheap 16mm movie camera(again, by Hollywood's standards), operated by an exited, shaky-handed cowboy, and focusing specifically upon a hair covered, bipedal creature as the main subject of the film. To clarify even further, I'll add to that point and say that AFAIK, no "Hollywood" producers have directed any stretch of film to be shot with a somewhat cheap 16mm camera(by their standards), and order the operator to exibit unnatural shakiness(added for the desired effect of natural exitedness), and have the operator focusing specifically upon a hair covered, bipedal creature as the main subject of the film. You do make some good points regarding some parts of the film being clearer than others, but I'll still stand by my statement that: If the images of the P&G film were captured by an expensive, stabilized, professional movie camera, then it would undoubtedly be clear as to where this was a man in a costume, or the real thing.
Regarding this point:

2. That subsequent video-hoaxers merely needed to use poor equipment to achieve convincing results. But none have done so—Krantz mentions (p. 122) eight subsequent “Bigfoot� films and videos (most presumably 8mm or analogue VCR videos) , obviously “all fakes.� But how can that be, if Technically Worse = Impressionistically Better?

The introduction of these videos into this argument is to introduce a set of unknown variables. Who were the operators that captured these videos? Under what circumstances were they shot? What location were they shot in? These were Presumably 8mm or analogue VCR?(I notice that none were mentioned to have been shot by a 16mm camera). What kind of suits were the subjects which participated in these "obvious fakes" clad in? This point doesn't hold up very well because it could be said that none of the fakes to date have been shot by an exited operator, using the same type of camera, using the same type of film, and using the same type of modified suit in an equivalent location(presuming that the Patterson film is a hoax). It is still my opinion that the subject in the Patterson film is an unknown biped, but I could still go either way depending upon the evidence presented.

[coltrane]

Roger-Following up Vol's excellent resonse, with a few brief comments:

Technically Worse = Impressionistically Better?

Not necessarily. Although using a more limited medium (even 8mm as you suggested) would not make the subject more believable, it might further complicate the process of reaching a conclusion. The point I originally made was simply that the medium, conditions, distance, lack of independent scalar, angle and shakiness of the PGF all contribute to make the man in the suit look much more mysterious than he actually is/was. Monster movies before the days of CGI understood this principle very well. As great a critter as Ridley Scott's Alien was for example, it was still an animatronic creation (at least partly)... Yet, it became one of the most convincing, terrifying monsters in cinema history because more than anything else, Scott knew not to show too much. James Cameron took a differet approach years later with the sequal, with a greatly diminshed result. (Please everyone... I'm not comparing Patty to the Alien!)

IMO no one would've remembered Patterson or his sidekick if he'd used a tripod, better camera, filmed more of the creature, etc... The film would've been debunked and forgotten before most of the people on this forum were ever born.

This post has been edited by coltrane: Jun 23 2004, 10:55 PM

[RogerKni]

(Attn. Avindair: the post you responded to a day or two ago was making this point, which you evaded when you responded with the diversion that Hollywood had no motivation to re-create the Patterson film.)

I didn't "evade your comment". I answered the point directly; Hollywood has no motivation to re-create the Patterson film. Until someone waves a nice paycheck under the talent in question, it just ain't gonna happen. After all, they run a business, and there honestly just isn't that much money associated with the PGF any longer. As such, comments like "Hollywood has never been able to duplicate this film!" are spurious at best, misleading at worst.

First, let me provide you and others with a tip on how to get quoted material into Invision’s quote boxes (instead of using boldfacing). (Since Invision is in the process of taking over the Forum world, knowing its quirks has usefulness extending beyond BFF postings.):
1. Hit the Quote button on the post containing the text you want to copy,
2. Type “HI� into the text-entry box (delete it later),
3. Tab down twice and click the “Preview Post� button; when it appears:
4. Go down to the text-entry box, where the material you want will now be nicely nested and also provided with DATED quote tags. (These dates can be useful sometimes--as in this dispute--to see who said what when.)
5. Select the text you want (or select it all with Ctrl-A), copy it with Ctrl-C, and paste it into a word-processor file where it can be refined and responded to. (I.e., copied and pasted later back into a post on BFF.)

Revenons à nos moutons. You not only evaded my point, you’ve now compounded your crime by attempting to evade the fact of your evasion. Let’s look at the record. In the posts below I’ve highlighted the point I was making: the lack of realism of Hollywood’s ape-suits compared to Patterson’s Bigfoot suit. I specifically stated that this was what I considered “damning� and that I was NOT talking about Hollywood’s failure to re-create the PG Film.
***** 1:

What’s really “damningâ€� is the failure of Hollywood to achieve similar realism in its ape-film portrayals, and of [Hollywood’s] professional re-creators to remotely match the PG film.  The Packham/BBC attempt employed a supercilious, know-it-all Hollywood pro, who had “skill, method, motive and meansâ€� far exceeding those of RP, but who produced a bad imitation, and failed to achieve even the simplest sort of attribute, a “well-defined body.â€�  Look at the picture on the BFRO site of his suit alongside Patty.  As I mentioned a few days ago, his suit’s legs look like “Oxford bagsâ€�—there is no shapely calf or tapered thigh, like Patty’s, let alone any muscle definition.

***** 2:

What’s really “damning� is the failure of Hollywood to achieve similar realism in its ape-film portrayals, and of professional re-creators to remotely match the PG film.

Hollywood, to my knowledge, hasn't made a concerted effort to recreate the Patterson film. [More in this vein follows, which I’ve clipped.]

***** 3:

The question I asked was why, if it’s a fake, and a non-professional fake at that (i.e., one quickly put together by a poor, inexperienced outsider), it would be virtually impossible for Hollywood not to have outdone it, or at least matched it.  Hollywood has 1000 times the (collective) experience, 10,000 times the money, and 100 times the motivation (i.e., it stands to make 100 times more from one of its ape-suit films than RP did from his Bigfoot movie).  Since it hasn’t done so, the suspicion grows that the reason it can’t is that it is not humanly possible.  (“Out, damned fact!â€�)

***** 4:

In the first line of mine you [Volsquatch] quoted, “if it’s a fake,â€� [see my post of May 19] my “itâ€� referred to a Patty-suit.  I was asking why Hollywood’s costume designers and make-up men like Chambers hadn’t matched its basic “realismâ€� in their ape-suits.  I was not asking why they hadn’t matched the Patty-walk, or matched Patty’s specific Bigfoot characteristics, or recreated the Patterson film.   Those are other kettles of fish.  I wish now I’d been explicit about that “it,â€� but I figured Avindair understood what I meant from the earlier posts I’d made.  Here they are:  [here I quoted relevant portions of my posts of the 16th and 18th.]

****** 5:

Patty's hair closely follows her body outline, revealing for instance the bulge of realistic-looking muscles, a realistically tapering thigh, a well-defined, mobile kneecap, a knobby shoulder and shoulder blade, a dimpled spinal column, realistic breasts, a shapely calf, a thigh that expands as it absorbs body weight (described in p. 22 of Glickman's report, and measurably illustrated in four still frames in Figure 28, which shows what is now interpreted as a hernia on her thigh), etc. 

(These are details lacking in "Harry,â€� for instance (and other Hollywood ape-suit creatures), which uses the usual Hollywood dodge of curly hair (unlike any real ape's or any reported Bigfoot's) to soften the bodily outline and conceal the lack of underlying muscle definition, and whose legs are just bland, tapering tubes that look like trouser legs.  It is Hollywood's inability to provide such details in its ape suits that is a silent but strong argument that doing so is beyond human ability.  (Attn. Avindair:  the post you responded to a day or two ago [actually May 17] was making this point, which you evaded when you responded with the diversion that Hollywood had no motivation to re-create the Patterson film.))

***** 6:

(Attn. Avindair: the post you responded to a day or two ago was making this point, which you evaded when you responded with the diversion that Hollywood had no motivation to re-create the Patterson film.)

I didn't "evade your comment". I answered the point directly; Hollywood has no motivation to re-create the Patterson film. [More in this vein follows, which I've clipped.]

Case closed.
*****

comments like "Hollywood has never been able to duplicate this film!" are spurious at best, misleading at worst.

But few (if any) such comments have actually been made. Believers’ comments are typically different, namely:
1. “Hollywood’s ape-suit movies demonstrate that it can’t match the realism of the ‘ape-suit’ in the PG Film.�
2. “Skeptics and debunking TV producers who say, ‘It’s obviously just a guy walking in an ape suit,’ haven’t been able to duplicate the walk or ape suit in the PG Film.�
You imply that your form of “comment� has been common. But if you searched this forum for occurrences of “Hollywood,� you’d find few comments that are in your form, and many in my forms.

[coltrane]

Roger- I will not attempt to speak for Avindair, but here are my responses:
From what I can tell, the premise of your argument:

Hollywood’s ape-suit movies demonstrate that it can’t match the realism of the ‘ape-suit’ in the PG Film.�

1) Hollywood's ape suits, like Baker's work in the 70's, were mostly attempts to portray conventional gorillas NOT replicate Patty or a Bigfoot creature. Patty's face and overall proportions differ from that of an ape... Therefore the differences.

2) "Matching the realism"...Your are comparing an image on 16mm film, taken outdoors, in less than ideal conditions, (from a significant distance) with 35mm Hollywood images taken under ideal conditions (closeups, studio lighting, etc...) This argument has already been addressed. Two different types of costumes, widely different conditions. For example: Critiqueing the "Harry" press photo and pointing out major differences between he and Patty. Not a valid comparison. Using "harry" as just one example:
a)Baker designed "Harry" as a character for a family film. His goal was not to replicate Patty-- sorry she just aint that cute.
bHarry appears on film, outdoors, indoors in a wide variety of postures, full length, closeup... and yeah in the bright lights of a studio press photo.
c) Had Harry been filmed under the identical conditons as Patty, perhaps people would believe he also was a real Sasquatch. Again you cant make critical comparisons of the Hollywood ape suits in feature movies to Patty.

The question I asked was why, if it’s a fake, and a non-professional fake at that (i.e., one quickly put together by a poor, inexperienced outsider), it would be virtually impossible for Hollywood not to have outdone it, or at least matched it.  Hollywood has 1000 times the (collective) experience, 10,000 times the money, and 100 times the motivation (i.e., it stands to make 100 times more from one of its ape-suit films than RP did from his Bigfoot movie).  Since it hasn’t done so, the suspicion grows that the reason it can’t is that it is not humanly possible

Roger you are wrong on this. Hollywood for the most part doesn't care. There is no motivation by industry people to recreate Patty. Hollywood hasnt duplicated it because Hollywood hasnt tried-- at this point I believe its due to indifference. I frankly think they're wrong and that it is an important topic...

On Thursday, June 17th at 1:30pm EST I was brought into a conference call/"pitch"-meeting with a producer from a well known cable network. One idea put out on the table was a one hour special investigating the authenticity of the PGF which would include an attempted recreation. In short, it went over like a lead balloon.(" ahem...Anything else?") I was told that it was probably better-suited for a short "segment" on a broader, topical show about urban legends, etc... I think they're dead wrong, but you get the picture ( I mention this only as an example of "Hollywood's motivation" and because I did allude to a recreation earlier here) Also, just try contacting Baker or any other effects artist of his caliber on this issue... Good luck!

This post has been edited by coltrane: Jun 25 2004, 01:03 PM

[Crow Logic]

OK... back at the computer tonight. None of my problems with the Patterson film will be a revelation to anyone here I'm sure-- all of these issues have been mulled over here quite thoroughly over the years. But since Bipto asked here goes a VERY general listing... Sorry its so long... AND let me say I do appreciate the input of folks here more often than not. This is bile-free but read it all before judgement.

My Problems with Patterson Film

1) First, but of secondary import: Dozens of inconsistencies and questionable circumstances surrounding Patterson, his penchant for deception and the entire backstory of the film. (Ooops! The troll emerges?) Relax Bipto â€â€� It’s true, this factor would probably not be admissible in a court of law if we were trying this case. So what! We are not bound to U.S. judicial standards when discerning the trustworthiness of “evidenceâ€� outside of a courtroom. Everything about Patterson smelled like a huckster and (sorry folks, open your eyes) that IS a factor, albeit a peripheral one. Those that think Patterson’s integrity is a non-issue might as well read the Weekly World News and believe that Bat-Boy lives in Tulsa.
2) The, gait, size and weight calculations of the subject in the film will never be conclusive. The subjects positioning, camera movement and placement, lack of proper scalar reference, and poor image quality make it scientifically impossible to render a true measurement. This is not my opinion, but those of the MAJORITY in the scientific community who have examined it. Believers tout the “staggering bulkâ€� of the subject, the enormous height and weight calculations. In contrast, the majority of scientists are unimpressed and can easily find blatant flaws in the methods believers use to determine their specs. I agree with science. This forum regularly blasts people like Beckjord for seeing pixilated creatures in every shadow and rightly so â€â€œ the guy is a LOON. But I have to laugh at the hypocrisy when I see many on this forum enlarging frames of the Patterson film and “criticallyâ€� finding ear, nose, jaw shapes, etc…in the MOST FUZZY and DISTORTED minutiae of the films subject. The source material harshly limits any conclusive discoveries. Sorry dudes.
3) What limited analysis scientists CAN detail of the film’s subject appears to be entirely human in origin. The overdramatic forward pitch of the trunk, certain “hang dog� characteristics in the gait, a buttocks that does not resemble that of an ape, facial features which look like a bad makeup job, the breasts etc… Believers claim the kinematics of the subject cannot be duplicated by a human- the clear majority of scientists who have researched this disagree. Again, I stick with science.
4) Special effects experts over the last 30 years have universally ridiculed the subject of the film as merely a man in a suit. Baker, Burman, ol’ man Chambers, Bottin and others have identified particular elements common with 1960’s era suit construction. The supposed “muscle structureâ€� nothing more than folds of the costume displayed under poor resolution. (more Beckjord-ismâ€â€�seeing something that isn’t really there?) “Well why haven’t they created one yet???â€� the believers scream. Because, by and large they don’t give a s**t. But this is going to change… within a year we will have a couple faithful recreations that will not be identical (an impossibility) but will be remarkably persuasive.
5) In order to believe in Patterson’s film, one must make an extraordinary leap of faith against what the majority of scientists and acquaintances of Patterson have to say. WHY DO THAT? Is this a conspiracy? In addition, one must discount the testimony of witnesses with impeccable reputations, including (among many) Phillip Morris and believe instead the series of events as described by a man with a history of lying. For the record, based on their words and attitude, I think Long and Korff are assholes. I could expose many errors with their brand of journalism and investigative techniques. But the fact is, sometimes you can learn a lot about yourself by listening to your enemies.
6) Pure speculation and nothing more. Within the next year Gimlin, under pressure, will come out of the closet and admit the hoax.
7) I still believe in Bigfoot my friends.

PAX!

I don't know if our friend Pax is still among us but his #6 point is long long overdue. Here we are 5 years later and Bob Gimlin has stuck to his guns.

This post has been edited by Crow Logic: Feb 20 2009, 11:01 PM

[thickfoot]

I am surprised no one rebutted many of the points made by Coltrane.. It is my understanding that there are very few scientists that analyzed the film. I know there was one that stated it was equally difficult to consider it fake as it was to call it a hoax (I am paraphrasing). Certainly not all special effects people have concluded it is an obvious fake.

Yes Gimlin has stuck to his guns, but playing devil's advocate, if he did admit a hoax after all this time I would not think the consequences would be pretty.

[tugboatwa]

Which is more sad... starting yet another P/G thread... or digging up a nearly five-year-old thread?

[thickfoot]

Is it not allowed? If everything to be said has been said then what is the point?

[BigfootXists]

I agree 109.7%. Who here has read every word of every thread? And, I don't think that not believing in the PGF makes you a Troll, Coltrane. Thoughtful doubt, such as yours, makes this a better place in some ways. I just wonder: if Bigfoot is here (and, I think they are) then could there possibly NOT be any proof at least as convincing as the PGF? I don't think so. Therefore, I have: BigFoot-Yes, More convincing proof than the PGF-No, probability that the PGF shows a real Bigfoot-High. Thanks,

BFX

This post has been edited by BigfootXists: May 27 2009, 10:15 PM

[RavenMadd]

Beating a rented mule good guys

[BigfootXists]

Who's beating a rented mule? I don't get that. Some of us are trying to determine if Bigfoot is real. We see the PGF as important in that regard and We understand that it is still being scrutinized. That may not fit into some people's "time-line" for solving the Bigfoot mystery but, some of us find it very interesting.

BFX